Jump to content

Former Ravens LB :As many as 4 gay players could come out


JetsFanInDenver

Recommended Posts

lol...i figured id add a little humor.

*disclaimer*

My statement was in no way intended to imply that all sorcerers are filthy...in fact, some of my best friends are indeed CLEAN sorcerers.

 

 

That's what they tried to get you to think right before they turn you into a ****  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Crusher might enjoy some Bojangles then. Might I suggest this one:

http://www.unionstationdc.com/store/bojangles/2137039223

 

You will find it far superior to other local options I'd venture.

 

 

Apparently you don't know what fantasy means. But at least you've got the intolerant internet censor thing down pat.

Just so I'm being clear, I feel no requirement to censor my not-even-banned-by-network-tv language for YOUR children. If you don't want them to hear the word ****, it's YOUR job to keep them off the internet (and not watching television while you're at it). This is especially true when the thread in question is dedicated to the discussion of homosexuallity in our culture. Somehow in such a thread I doubt my use of the word **** was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

If the site owner doesn't want the term used, he can do what most do, and have the forum auto-censor.  Problem solved.

Just so we're clear.  I changed it.  Feel free not to censor yourself, just don't be surprised when the site owner does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate people that try to shove their lifestyle down your throat (no pun intended) gay, straight, bi...wtf ever.

The people thay are so bent on these players coming out are no different from the people who dont want them to come out.

I see, people who encourage someone to express their rights is no different from someone who wants to prevent them.

 

This reminds me very much of the 1960's when blacks were so effectively prevented from voting that they no longer bothered trying.  Various groups of civil rights workers, many if not most of them white, went down to register them.  At which point the authorities down there pronounced these people as "outside agitators" looking to impose their ways on the local people and stir up trouble.  Quite a few of these civil rights workers were murdered for the work they did.

 

 

 

 

Abenjagdascdtbo is gay himself, good luck in your career in politics after football, Douche!

As the example I gave above proves, you most certainly do not have to be one of a group to support and work for the rights of that group.  A person who says so is trying to imply that people who support the rights of others are either very odd or are cynically using it as a springboard for a political career.  They simply will not recognize that somebody can be moved to speak out on behalf of someone else because they think it's right.  And they're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you wont answer my question because there is no way to spin it into gay bashing or race hating, huh?...you filthy sorcerer

No need to address how you accussed me of name calling, when you were the only one guilty of it.

How convenient...you actually lack integrity.

 

 

I see you take advice well. Rather than look back at how you've misrepresented yourself, you dig your heels in further behind a position you say you aren't taking, but are damned sure going to argue for? Your question was stupid. I'm not going to bite on your attempts to debate semantics. You may believe one thing, but you came across with a conflicting perspective. You are a bad communicator, and seem ignorant of it, amongst other things.

 

 

Also, I never accused you of name-calling.

 

Try and figure out what you are talking about, then opt not to talk anymore. 

 

Yeah, I've got no integrity. That's how this is unfolding alright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, people who encourage someone to express their rights is no different from someone who wants to prevent them.

This reminds me very much of the 1960's when blacks were so effectively prevented from voting that they no longer bothered trying. Various groups of civil rights workers, many if not most of them white, went down to register them. At which point the authorities down there pronounced these people as "outside agitators" looking to impose their ways on the local people and stir up trouble. Quite a few of these civil rights workers were murdered for the work they did.

As the example I gave above proves, you most certainly do not have to be one of a group to support and work for the rights of that group. A person who says so is trying to imply that people who support the rights of others are either very odd or are cynically using it as a springboard for a political career. They simply will not recognize that somebody can be moved to speak out on behalf of someone else because they think it's right. And they're wrong.

Blahhh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you take advice well. Rather than look back at how you've misrepresented yourself, you dig your heels in further behind a position you say you aren't taking, but are damned sure going to argue for? Your question was stupid. I'm not going to bite on your attempts to debate semantics. You may believe one thing, but you came across with a conflicting perspective. You are a bad communicator, and seem ignorant of it, amongst other things.

Also, I never accused you of name-calling.

Try and figure out what you are talking about, then opt not to talk anymore.

Yeah, I've got no integrity. That's how this is unfolding alright.

Woohoo, youre so smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, people who encourage someone to express their rights is no different from someone who wants to prevent them.

This reminds me very much of the 1960's when blacks were so effectively prevented from voting that they no longer bothered trying. Various groups of civil rights workers, many if not most of them white, went down to register them. At which point the authorities down there pronounced these people as "outside agitators" looking to impose their ways on the local people and stir up trouble. Quite a few of these civil rights workers were murdered for the work they did.

As the example I gave above proves, you most certainly do not have to be one of a group to support and work for the rights of that group. A person who says so is trying to imply that people who support the rights of others are either very odd or are cynically using it as a springboard for a political career. They simply will not recognize that somebody can be moved to speak out on behalf of someone else because they think it's right. And they're wrong.

Ok, ok...one question...what rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="Integrity28" post="2260504" timestamp="1365306691"

Call me more names. I'm positive you can come out on the right side of this with enough insults and back-pedalling. Low life.

No, youre right...you didnt accuse me of name calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woohoo, youre so smart.

 

Avoiding relevancy.

 

No, youre right...you didnt accuse me of name calling.

 

I knew you'd bite. You called me a loser, or something, I called you a low life. The only thing notable about this is that I'm 100% right that you possess the brutal combination of arrogance and ignorance, and that's why instead of clarifying your point of view, or acknowledging that you can see how you sent the wrong message with your initial stupidity, you've chosen instead to try to get a face-saving win on the whole "you accused me of calling names" point. 

I conceded that to you, to make a further example of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avoiding relevancy.

I knew you'd bite. You called me a loser, or something, I called you a low life. The only thing notable about this is that I'm 100% right that you possess the brutal combination of arrogance and ignorance, and that's why instead of clarifying your point of view, or acknowledging that you can see how you sent the wrong message with your initial stupidity, you've chosen instead to try to get a face-saving win on the whole "you accused me of calling names" point.

I conceded that to you, to make a further example of you.

I said you were weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? 

 

Ayanbadejo never said it was a lock that four players would come out.  Only that organizations were talking to them about it, and that he thought, (but did not guarantee), that it would happen.

 

Outspoken gay-rights advocate Brendon Ayanbadejo, formerly of the Ravens, said there are discussions that could result in as many as four players coming out at once.


I think it will happen sooner than you think,” Ayanbadejo told Aaron Wilson of the Baltimore Sun. “We’re in talks with a handful of players who are considering it.

 

 

I find it hilarious that Cimini is criticizing Ayanbadejo for involving himself in the matter of gay pro football players coming out as homosexual, when Cimini is involving himself by writing an opinion piece about it and Cimini is neither gay nor a pro football player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? 

 

Ayanbadejo never said it was a lock that four players would come out.  Only that organizations were talking to them about it, and that he thought, (but did not guarantee), that it would happen.

 

 

 

I find it hilarious that Cimini is criticizing Ayanbadejo for involving himself in the matter of gay pro football players coming out as homosexual, when Cimini is involving himself by writing an opinion piece about it and Cimini is neither gay nor a pro football player.

 

Who is this Ayanbadejo guy that he's the figurehead of some secret society of gay players? I don't care one way or another if these players come since it doesn't effect me, but this attention whoring clown turning this into a story about himself is exausting. Just shut up and if they come out then they come out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...